Delhi Court September 1987 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hanuman Pershad and Sons and anr. Vs. Jindal Vanaspati Udyog Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT253; 1987RLR607
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This order shall dispose of the dispute regarding the plea of the plaintiffs taken in their replication that the defendant is liable to pay court fee in respect of its alleged adjusted amount of Rs. 84,000.00 . Where as the contention of the plaintiffs is that this amount cannot be towards adjustment but is only by way of set off for which reason the defendant must pay court fee on this amount the defendant has asserted in the written statement and has also/contended that this amount is not by way of set off but is only by way of adjustment and the amount adjusted does not require any court fpaybleeon to be paid. The law upon the point is settled in that no court fee is payable on the plea of adjustment while court fee is payable on a plea of set off (Munshi Ram and others v. Radha Kishan (dead.) and others, S. Sathiapal v. The Pandiyan Brick Works and another, : AIR1974Mad53 ; and Somraj v. Jethmal and others, ). (2) The defendant purchased mustard oil on differ...
State Bank of India Vs. Midland Industries and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi153; [1991]70CompCas373(Delhi); ILR1987Delhi524
Mahesh Chandra, J.(1) By this order I propose to dispose of I. A. No. 177 of 1987 filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 rule 6 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. with a request that in so far as the defendant has made an admission in a letter dated 25th August, 1985 that a sum of Rs. 5,98,0001- was due to the plaintiff from the defendant a decree be(2) The contention of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 firm has been maintaining its accounts and a letter dated 25th August, 1985 now Ex. P. 4 was written by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff requesting the plaintiff to transfer the then existing outstanding loan against the defendant along with interest to the defendants 'Working Capital Term Loan' Account. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that along therewith the defendant had submitted a balance sheet as on 31st March, 1985 and in the said balance sheet the defendant had admitted that a sum of Rs. 5,98,0001- was due as on that date to the plaintiff from the defendant...
Kinjal Electricals (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT327TriDel
1. Notice dated 6-2-84 was issued to the appellants M/s. Kinjal Electricals (P) Ltd. that they had intentionally bifurcated their activities by creating another firm by name M/s. Naveen Enterprises in order to evade payment of Central Excise duty and that the clearances of both units were to be taken together to arrive at eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 83/83 as well as 77/83 and therefore benefit under Notifications No. 309/79 and 179/77 could not be available to the appellants. They were called upon to show cause why action in respect of demand of duty etc. should not be taken accordingly. The appellants replied claiming that they were distinct from M/s. Naveen Enterprises and that there was no common interest between the two firms and therefore the propsed action was not justified. After adjudication the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Division-II, Ghaziabad under his order dated 2-12-85 held that Naveen Enterprises was simply a ruse and a device to evade excise ...
Mukhamal Ram NaraIn Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC410
1. Being dis-satisfied with the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,75,000/- under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Factual Backdrops: The appellants - a partnership firm - hold a Gold Dealer Licence. It is said that on 11-11-1983 in pursuit of an intelligence report, the Gold Preventive Officers visited the business premises of the appellant firm and after checking/examining the account books etc. in the presence of the partners of the firm detected a shortage of 3141.450 gms. of new gold ornaments (22 cts. purity) and 410.300 gms. of new gold ornaments (24 cts. purity) collectively valued at Rs. 6,45,330/- approximately. Shri Mahesh Khanna, partner of the appellant firm, in whose presence the search and seizure were conducted, admitted the shortage of the above new gold ornaments in their stock on the spot and stated, inter alia, that the shortage had occurred since they were unable to physically verify the stock-in-trade in thei...
income-tax Officer Vs. Arihant Kalyan Trust
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1987
Reported in: (1989)28ITD135a(Delhi)
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AAC was not justified in directing the ITO to allow the benefit of Section 11 of the IT Act, 1961, even though the assessee have failed to comply with the statutory provisions of Section 12A(b) of the IT Act 2. The background facts as are found from the assessment order are to the following effect: Return declaring nil income was filed on 12-9-1983. Notice-under Section 143(2) was issued in response to which Sh. P.K. Sunderka, CA appeared from time to time. Case was discussed. On perusal of the return it was noticed that the assessee did not file with the return the audited copies of accounts and an audit report in Form No. 10B prescribed under Rule 17B of the IT Rules, 1962. Since the non-filing of the said documents with the return amounted to the violation of the provisions of Section 12A(b) the counsel of the assessee was required to explain as to why the benefit of sees, U and 12 should not be disallowed to the assess...
Sahibabad Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1987
Reported in: [1991]70CompCas271(Delhi); 33(1987)DLT237; 1987RLR599
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated February 6, 1986 dismissing plaintiff/ appellant's application for grant of temporary injunction. (2) National Thermal Power Corporation (for short NTPC) had entrusted to Engineering Projects (India) Limited (for short EPI) the turnkey project for setting up of a Coal Handling Plant for Badarpur Thermal Power Station On January 11, 1984 Epi issued a Letter of Indent to have pretender tie up with M/s. Sahibabad Steels Pvt. Ltd. (for short SSL), the plaintiff, for civil works, structural fabrication and erection work at a lump sum cost of Rs. 3.70 crores. The terms and conditions for this work was to be on back- to-back basis, as agreed between Epi and NTPC. After some negotiations and correspondence Ssl submitted its offer vide its letter dated August 6,1984. It agreed to execute the said work on a lump sum cost of Rs. 3.89 crores. Its offer was accepted by Epi by its letter date...
H. Abnash Chander Sehgal Etc. Vs. V.K. Kharbanda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)DRJ233
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25(B)8 of Delhi Rent Control Act against the order dated 10th May, 1985 of Sh. G.D. Dhanuka, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by which he dismissed the petition for eviction brought by the petitioners on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence of the premises in question.(2) Admitted facts in brief are that property bearing Municipal No. 883/884, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, was purchased by the petitioners in the year 1967 as per sale deed which is Ex. AW-I/I. The property was in occupation of different tenants but ultimately the petitioners got vacated certain portions by filing eviction cases and some tenants vacated on their own and petitioners started living in the ground floor of the said property. The premises in the first floor, which are now in tenancy of respondents, were lying vacant for some period and they came to be let out to respondent on the 5th February, 1972 at the rental of Rs....
Collector of Customs Vs. Raja Barley Biscuit Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT67TriDel
1. Both the respondents are not present today. By their letters dated 4-9-1987 and 14-8-1987, they have requested us to decide these two appeals on the basis of their written submissions.2. We have heard the learned representative of the department, perused the record and considered the written submissions of the respondents.The respondents imported a Macaroni Paste Mixing Machine each. The capacity of the machine was 50 kgs. in the case of appeal No. C-1560 and 35 kgs. in the case of appeal No. C-1561. Both the machines work on 440 volts electric current. The point of dispute is whether additional customs duty should be charged on these machines with reference to Item 53C of the Central Excise Tariff or Item 68 thereof.3. Item 33C of the Central Excise Tariff covers Domestic Electrical Appliances. These were defined in the Tariff to mean such electrical appliances as were normally used in the household though similar appliance may also be used in hotels, restaurants, hostels etc. The...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1987
Reported in: (1988)(33)ELT509TriDel
1. These are two appeals - one filed by Revenue and the other by the Assessee, M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited against the Order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who by a common order No.48-49-CE/MRT/83, dated 9-2-1983 disposed of the two appeals before him.He has set aside the order of demand of Rs. 2,85,544.,39 covered by one of the impugned orders before him holding it as time barred and against this order the Revenue have filed an appeal before us. In the other case before him, Collector (Appeals) upheld the demand confirmed by the lower authority. The facts giving rise to the demands in both the cases are the same. The two appeals are therefore dealt with together.2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited, in their mill premises, have installed one straw board unit with an installed capacity of 5400 metric tonnes and a paper unit with an installed capacity of 1500 metric tonnes per year. The Paper Unit was set up later in point of time. M/s...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indian Card Board Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC314
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II against the order of Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Calcutta.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents manufactured mill board and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 70/76. The res-pendents used 3% to 5% of straw and less than 1% jute cuttings alongwith other materials for the manufacture of the goods. The Assistant Collector held that the use of straw and jute cuttings disentitled the respondents to the benefit of the said notification.For convenience of reference the said notification is set out as under : "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) No. 24/74~Central Excises, dated the 1st March, 1974, the Central Government hereby exempts straw board and mill board, falling under sub-item (2) of Item No. 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »